main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

JCC ROYAL BABY 3 (Royal Wedding 2 Edition)

Discussion in 'Community' started by AaylaSecurOWNED, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. Mar17swgirl

    Mar17swgirl Jedi Grand Master star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 26, 2000
    I'm not familiar with the proposed law, but is the abolishment of the male-preference actually tied to the allowing the heir to marry a Catholic? Can't they be discussed as two separate laws? Because I think the former should be done before the royal baby is born, but the latter IMHO has bigger issues (the ones you posted above) and there's no rush in that area.
     
  2. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Yes, they are combined in the same law -- probably because there's a lot of support for the gender equality stuff, but not so much for the anti-Catholic stuff. They probably figure this is their only chance to get this through. The Prince of Wales has come out against it though, as has the Anglican Church (predictably).

    Also, after doing some reading, it turns out that many (if not most) British titles are purely agnatic, so titles will either pass to distant relatives or become extinct. In 2013, as if it's still Downton flippin' Abbey. Patently absurd! (Lord Fellowes's wife is the daughter of a peer and she will not inherit -- now I can take the show in a bit of a new light, since I know he's campaigned for his wife's rights before).
     
    Mar17swgirl and laurethiel1138 like this.
  3. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Why does the King/Queen have to be the head of the Church of England? Can't they just make the Archbishop of Cantebury officially take over, since he basically runs the Anglican Church anyways?

    Also, I thought the UK already changed the law so that William and Kate's firstborn (whether a boy or a girl) would be the next-in-line after William?
     
  4. Ramza

    Ramza Administrator Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA VIP

    Registered:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Because 1. Britain likes tradition and 2. that little caveat was literally the entire point. :p
     
    MrZAP likes this.
  5. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms star 9 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    I thought Charles and the Queen changed that law years ago.
     
  6. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    No -- succession is determined by law (promulgated by Parliament) and the Crown has little say in the matter. Elsewise I. The Stuarts would've have followed the Tudors and II. afterwards, the Jacobites would've gotten what they wanted (as the whole argument of Jacobitism is that Parliament improperly interfered in the succession and illegally gave the throne to William and Mary). Indeed, the entire rule that the royal line must proceed from the descendants of the Electress of Hanover represents a striking level of interference in the succession (the soon-to-be George I was 58th in the line of succession).

    So what actually happened so far?
    I. The government floated the idea, and HM The Queen and the Prince of Wales seemed amenable.
    II. The 16 Commonwealth realms said that if the succession laws were changed, they would happily follow suit (so as not to split the Crown).

    But Parliament still has to actually enact the bill, which involves amending a *lot* of statutes, most of which are quite old.
     
  7. Rogue_Ten

    Rogue_Ten Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 18, 2002
    :rolleyes:

    so much easier to just build a guillotine...
     
    JoinTheSchwarz likes this.
  8. Lugija

    Lugija Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Hmm. I was ready to yell "King in the Canada!" and pledge my sword. Even though I don't live in Canada. And my sword is made from a plastic tube and a floorball stick.
     
  9. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Ah but is it Valyrian plastic?
     
  10. Lugija

    Lugija Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2009
    I have too many broken ones to answer yes. But they give a nice lightsabery sound when hit together. I had to make a few more the summer before last because cousins wanted to play Star Wars and needed a Grievous (that was me since I can whirl them fast and still not hit everyone where it hurts)
     
  11. AaylaSecurOWNED

    AaylaSecurOWNED Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    May 19, 2005
    I was discussing this with an English friend a couple weeks ago, but this seems very weird to me. I would think that since the Crown has no real power anymore and since there's now such a vast separation between the function of the government and the monarchy, it's surprising to me that Parliament still has that much control over the royal rules of succession - and cares enough to amend them. You would think that since the monarchy is now no more than a symbolic figurehead that Parliament wouldn't give a **** who succeeds or need to be involved in determining it anyway.
     
  12. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
  13. Juliet316

    Juliet316 Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2005
    They didn't take into account William's early age baldness did they?
     
  14. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    I wonder who will go bald first, Prince William or Marco Rubio? :p

    But seriously, I think that gene is only inherited from the mother's side, so like if Kate has a bald grandfather or bald uncle's.

    Btw, why can't Prince William just buy some of that anti-baldness stuff they're always advertising on TV commercials? I think he can afford it :p
     
  15. Juliet316

    Juliet316 Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Then it must have been a freak inheritance from his father's side because Diana's brother still has(had? haven't seen recent photos/vids of him lately) a full head of hair while Charles, well pictures speak for themselves with Charles.
     
  16. Saintheart

    Saintheart Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2000
    The forty years of economic chaos in France until it got back to its pre-Revolution financial position disagrees with you. Les Miserables is set in 1815, 19 years after the period of the French Revolution is generally historically agreed to have ended (in 1796).
     
  17. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Much of the chaos France went through in the "revolutionary" and "Napoleonic" (the line between those is pretty arbitrary) periods is attributable as much to counterrevolutionary (mostly monarchists) forces domestically and abroad as it was to the republicans themselves. Also, the last few kings had put France in an awful financial position and even before the First Republic was declared it's kind of difficult to be in a good financial position when practically an entire continent is mobilized against you. Louis XVI, mind you, was only executed after he made a series of attempts to secure foreign intervention to restore absolutist rule.

    All of Les Miserables, by the way, takes place after the Bourbon Restoration and the end is during the Orleanist period.
     
  18. Saintheart

    Saintheart Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2000
    I said economic chaos, not military. On that Fiat Money Inflation in France by Andrew Dickson White is rather instructive. The reason 1796 is the generally agreed end of the revolutionary period is because that's when its hyperinflated currency was shot between the eyes: July 16, 1796, when France repealed its legal tender laws and thus cancelled its worthless fiat currency outright. Prior to that, there had been heavy financial repression by the "revolution" against its own people: on February 28, 1793, a Paris mob wearing masks first looted bread, then they simply stole everything, progressing from the somewhat sympathetic bread only to take it all, all in the same night. On June 22, 1793, the French federal government employed financial repression, forcing all married men who made more than 10,000 francs and all single men who made more than 6,000 francs to lend money to the government—similar to forcing them to buy government bonds. France later lowered the loan threshold to those who made one thousand francs because so many of the rich fled the country taking their wealth with them.
     
  19. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Those poor, oppressed rich people.

    And you just proved that the line is arbitrary. 1796 is early anyway.
     
  20. Saintheart

    Saintheart Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2000
    Thanks for missing the point: i.e. that when the "rich" fled the country, the "new rich", i.e. those previously known as the "less than rich", i.e.e. anyone with 1,000 francs rather than 6,000, were forced into the same financial repression. I daresay going from demanding money from someone who earns $360,000 per year down to demanding money from people who earn $60,000 per year would be a little objectionable, don't you think? I've established my date for the end of the revolution; if you'd like to disprove White's text and the implications it holds for monetary policy in the present day, be my guest.

    EDIT: Unless you're saying it's right to force people to loan money to the government at below market interest rates, of course?
     
  21. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    The First Republic was in a desperate situation throughout its whole existence. They also started mass conscription. You'd probably have a much easier time convincing me that was "wrong."
     
  22. Saintheart

    Saintheart Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2000
    My point is that the First Republic got into that desperate situation there mainly through the same sort of silly economic conduct -- overspending and then hyperinflating your currency to pay for it, thereby causing the destitution of your own people -- as governments have been doing on and off through the last several hundred years or so, with or without a king. Indeed White's accounts of the sort of oratory going on to justify the economic monkeying around have a depressingly familiar sound to them. If you really want to know how a government can utterly destroy its people by playing around with the currency, look up Anna Eisenmeiger's "Blockade". She was a doctor's wife, so obviously a poor, deserving capitalist who entirely got her just rewards as her family died of starvation around her in Austria of 1922-23. You can, if you like, blame the West for Austria "having" to hyperinflate due to the war reparations of World War 1, but the same can't be said of Revolutionary France. And I'd suggest the result is the same: misery as the worth of the people's currency is stolen from them by their own government debasing it.

    EDIT: And it might be noted that France did not have the excuse that it had not happened before. John Law almost single-handedly destroying the French currency had happened less than a hundred years before the Revolution.
     
  23. JoinTheSchwarz

    JoinTheSchwarz JC Head Admin & Community Manager star 8 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2002
  24. Saintheart

    Saintheart Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2000
    Now that's an incisive contribution (b-boom tss)
     
    Dark Lady Mara likes this.
  25. Rogue_Ten

    Rogue_Ten Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 18, 2002
    they got in their "desperate situation" by deposing their despot in an age of despots, thereby incurring the enmity of all the surrounding despots, who understandably freaked out and marshalled all the forces and wealth at their disposal to crush a people that had dared to try to overturn the old oppressive order, before their own bourgeoisie developed similar aspirations. but you can go on rambling about fiat currency if that's not obvious enough to you. i suppose haiti got where it is by "overspending" as well, and not by daring to throw off the shackles of racist colonialism in a world run by racist colonialists?

    its shocking almost to the point of physical nausea to me that the human mind can tie itself in such fabulous knots as yours has in order to convince itself of the righteousness of not only its own enslavement, but the different forms of enslavement of ages past. are you prince charles? what could possibly be so tantalizing about this absurd belief system for you?